Type to search

This Week In Crazy: Obama Is The Ultimate Jihadist, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right

Memo Pad Politics Slideshow

This Week In Crazy: Obama Is The Ultimate Jihadist, And The Rest Of The Worst Of The Right


Welcome to “This Week In Crazy,”  The National Memo’s weekly update on the wildest attacks, conspiracy theories, and other loony behavior from the increasingly unhinged right wing. Starting with number five:

5. Dinesh D’Souza

D'Souza may want to get used to this outfit

D’Souza may want to get used to this outfit

Right-wing activist Dinesh D’Souza, who is apparently not yet in prison, brought his latest book tour to Fox News’ The Kelly File on Monday night.

Things got weird.

D’Souza started with his standard shtick on how President Obama secretly views America as “exceptionally evil.”

“I think with Obama you have a president who in a sense views his job as one of containing, or curtailing, the power of his own country,” D’Souza argued. To her credit, Kelly — who’s hardly an admirer of the president’s — found this charge to make no sense at all.

“It sounds like you’re accusing him of being almost anti-American,” Kelly said. “If he were anti-American, if he didn’t love his country, why would he want to be president of it?”

“Well, look at it this way,” D’Souza replied. “It’s almost like this: If I was in a family and I believed my dad was some kind of a serial killer or a child molester, I would still love him. He would be part of my family, but I’d do everything I could to prevent him from doing evil actions.”

“I would think that would not only be good for the world, but good for my dad. So with Obama, he believes he’s doing the world a favor and America a favor by controlling this rogue elephant that is the United States.”

“So America is the child molester in this scenario?” Kelly replied with a laugh. “Just trying to follow, Dinesh. I think we may have jumped off the deep end.”

Pleading guilty to illegally funneling money to the wrong side of the most lopsided election in the history of New York is embarrassing. But having your anti-Obama argument laughed off of Fox News is rock bottom.

Henry Decker

Henry Decker was formerly the Managing Editor of The National Memo. He is currently an Online Associate at MRCampaigns.

  • 1


  1. FireBaron June 20, 2014

    Wow. West is really off his meds these days!

    1. Kevin Woods June 23, 2014

      Well……he has been for a VERY long time.
      Most people forget (or maybe, never knew) why he was forced to retire from the Army to begin with……

      That should’ve told Florida voters right there, that the man’s head wasn’t quit right.

  2. adler56 June 20, 2014

    West needs to have his military pension stopped. Why pay anti-American nut- jobs. He “retired” rather than face a court-martial anyway. Hardly honorable service from that WACKJOB.

  3. FT66 June 20, 2014

    No surprise. Same people coming with their crazy talk every now and then. Here I mean: Rush Limbaugh, Glen Beck, and Alan West. Aren’t we tired of them? I am. This is like an out of mind (mentally sick person) within own household. We don’t kick them out, sometimes we shout to them BUT mostly we ignore them in whatever they say because we know do not make any sense at all. Why can’t we do the same to these three I have mentioned above. We need to ignore them completely, as we all know they will never change. We totally benefit NOTHING from them. Is it difficult to ignore them? By the way, what about alternating instead of coming every Friday with “This Week In Crazy” come up with: “This Week In Making Sense”. I know there are People out there who are really talking sense, and no one highlight on them.

    1. plc97477 June 20, 2014

      They are so insane I think it could be dangerous to ignore them. They need to be watched constantly.

      1. FT66 June 20, 2014

        I partially agree with you. I have come to learn through normal living, that sometimes NOT always, ignoring something or keeping quiet is the best Cure.

      2. Russell Byrd June 20, 2014

        An excellent point!

    2. latebloomingrandma June 20, 2014

      Unfortunately, many people really believe them. I have been surprised by the number of people I thought I knew who believe these extreme views.

      1. highpckts June 20, 2014

        Oh yeah! Half my family think they walk on water!

        1. FT66 June 20, 2014

          Walk on water!!! without sinking down? Then you need to educate that half of your family. I hope they can understand without following the direction where the wind blows to.

          1. Sand_Cat June 20, 2014

            Maybe they really can. After all, they’re certainly full of gas.

      2. FT66 June 20, 2014

        I agree with you that many other people believe them. BUT and only BUT, should you or rather we, expand that number? I can assure you, every Friday these people who always say crazy stuff are coming to this website to check if crazy things they have said in the course of the week are quoted on this website. Once they see they are there, they are very happy and rejoicing. Why should they get such a favor from people who are thinking quite different from them?

    3. Midway54 June 20, 2014

      The plutocrats and their media lapdogs don’t want average Americans to ignore them. Witness who showed up on the main television networks in last Sunday’s gasbag programming. There they were, all the loyal sycophants of the plutocracy, braying about the middle east situation and what do do about it: Chicken hawk Billy Kristol who, like his soul-mate Cheney,never spurned perpetual wars for perpetual profits as long as others are doing the fighting and the dying; Wolfowitz and Cheney and Bremer all weighed in despite their leading roles in lying the Country into unnecessary war against Iraq. All of these scoundrels have a home at Fox “News,” a cesspool of political bilge, where the likes of the uneducated Hannity and the three stooges seated on a couch as hosts of Fox and Friends show greet them warmly, quietly content in knowing that all the rubes and dupes in their viewership are in rapt attention to what is being peddled to them. The plutocrats as owners of the media, the governments state and local, and the financial system will see to having an ongoing rant from hereon toward election day against those unpatriotic Americans who dissent from and criticize their brand of neo-fascist ideology.


    5. Russell Byrd June 20, 2014

      Not just tired of them, but puking, gagging sick of them. Sick to the point of wanting them to be literally ground into hamburger and fed to dogs.

      Unfortunately, I don’t think the problem is with “we” ignoring them, but with “them” worshiping them as gods.

      1. FredAppell June 21, 2014

        Russell, don’t put too much stock in the power and influence of the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. America is a big country and those gas bags have appeal to a relatively small portion of our population. I used to think otherwise but I’m beginning to see how irrelevant they really are. Most people know what their all about, they’re mostly just attention whores. Without their constant vitriol of President Obama and those of us on the left, they’d be without a job because they certainly don’t offer anything substantive. I used to listen to Air America and one thing became abundantly clear, the left tries to offer solutions while the right just bitches a lot. Most people eventually get sick of that b/s and move on. The only answers that the right can come up with and they keep repeating the mantra often is for smaller government and less taxes but they don’t explain in any detail how the loss of revenue is going to make this country any better.

        1. Mikey7a June 22, 2014

          “Russell, don’t put too much stock in the power and influence of the Limbaughs and Becks of the world. America is a big country and those gas bags have appeal to a relatively small portion of our population. I used to think otherwise but I’m beginning to see how irrelevant they really are.”

          Forgive the assumption Fred, but you must live in The NE U.S. Here in NW Fla, these lunatics are preaching the Gospel! Our country is divided. As long as these idiots can stoke the fire, there will be no compromise. United we stand, divided we fall, well in my humble opinion, we are in a free fall, with no parachute! I’m truly frightened for my grand babies, and The America they will live in, if The Republican Party ever gains complete control.

          1. FredAppell June 22, 2014

            There’s nothing to forgive Mikey, you’re assumption is spot on. I do live in the North East, New England to be more precise. We have a slightly different breed of conservatism here and the Tea Party doesn’t have a very strong foothold here in Connecticut. I do hear the things they say about us here in New England though. They call us elitists and out of touch with the real America as if we’re some foreign nation trying to dictate to the rest of the country. My state may have the largest concentration of wealthy Americans but we also have among the highest taxation (if not the highest) that of any other state. In spite of all that, I’m only making $18,000 a year while working 40 hours a week. I’m not on any kind of state or federal assistance and yet the conservatives still want to claim I’m out of touch.

            I too see a divided America but Rush Limbaugh and Glen Beck are merely just puppets for their masters. It’s those masters that I worry most about,
            they’re the ones spending 10’s of millions of dollars
            spreading fear and misinformation to the public. For instance; I saw a Koch Industries commercial
            this morning touting all the wonderful things the Koch Industries does and stands for (gag). The Kochs don’t need public opinion to sway in their favor to continue amassing their fortune, the sole purpose of that very transparent whitewash was to
            make sure that their candidates keep winning elections. The best you can do is to teach your grand babies to fight for what they believe in, it may take multiple generations but you have it in your power to sow the seeds now. Good luck!

          2. Mikey7a June 22, 2014

            Thank you Fred. Believe me when I tell you, I preach to my kids, and grands, every day. I get into heated discussions, with people I love over this mess. At least once a day, I have to hear “That thar Obama is ruining Murica!”. That’s when I try to point out how we got to where we are economically. How our President is being obstructed, and out right attacked daily, for trying to right the ship! How The Koch’s want a Plutocracy, and could care less about any of us. Honestly, if I could stand the weather, I’d be in Massachusetts tomorrow! All we can do, is keep explaining to the young folks, how The Right has one use for you, if you’re poor. That is your vote. Anyway, good luck to you, and keep up the good fight.

  4. Grannysmovin June 20, 2014

    Dinesh D’Souza: Of course he brought his book tour to Fox that
    is where his audience is. Is that his book’s jacket photo – orange fits him.

    Bryan Fischer: Once he said “from my Christian perspective,” he gave it away that he was telling a horror story.

    Glenn Beck: Just when I thought perhaps there was hope for change on the extreme right, Beck had to keep on spewing vomit from his orifice.

    Rush Limbaugh: Limbaugh should be very familiar with crashes, his mental state crashed decades ago and no one was every able to retrieve one solitary clue that he ever had a functioning brain cell.

    Allen West: To use a quote from Dale Carnegie – “Any fool can criticize, condemn, and complain – and most fools do.”

    1. idamag June 20, 2014

      I like that quote. Apropos.

    2. plc97477 June 20, 2014

      As far as d’souza, when fox news calls you on your insanity you have to be pretty far gone.

      1. neeceoooo June 20, 2014

        That is so true

    3. flyinjs June 20, 2014

      Everyone must admit that it is great to live in America. Our constitution allows everyone to “have a say” That right also has responsibilities and those that talk should be held to the fire, agree?

      1. Grannysmovin June 20, 2014

        I agree they have an 1st Amendment right to have their say and we are all exercising that same right expressing our view of their comments, either for or against.

  5. idamag June 20, 2014

    I think people, like buttcheeks, and Alan West did not want the perps, of Benghazi caught. If the truth comes out it will destroy their supposed scandal. To Alan West: You are a disgrace to your race, your office and the United States. Those people, who elected you owes the American people an apology. A guy, in an orange jumpsuit, is calling the President names?

  6. plc97477 June 20, 2014

    I am glad glen beck made it to the list. His relative sanity in the beginning of the week made me doubt my place in the universe. Now that he is back to being insane, I can go take my rightful place on the side of the sane.

    1. neeceoooo June 20, 2014

      So how does Glenn Beck know what the president is saying, he is so delusional…

  7. johninPCFL June 20, 2014

    The same toothless droolers that believe everything that goes on in WWE is real are the target audience for all of these nuts.
    I’m especially pleased that Fischer has finally come clean that he PREFERS sharia law to the US Constitution. Most of these idiots can’t spell ‘conservative’, and are only all-in when it involves restricting someone else’s right to behave in a way that THEY don’t approve of. Social conservatism? – unqualified YES. Fiscal conservatism? – well only if it doesn’t involve cutting military spending or Social Security (if I’m on it) or Medicare (if I use it) or any other program I’m signed onto.

  8. Lisztman June 20, 2014

    “The only thing we have to fear is fear itself.” — Franklin D. Roosevelt.

    Why does this Nation devote so much energy to loonies like Beck? He absolutely lives by arousing and firing the deepest fears of his listeners.

    His words do nothing to bring the Nation to a solution of problems — they serve only to increase the divisiveness among us, especially among those of less education who have not been taught to think — to analyze the issues — regardless of which side of whatever “issue” they happen to be on.

  9. neeceoooo June 20, 2014

    Perfect week in crazy, we get Beck, Loudmouth and West all in one package.

  10. Lisztman June 20, 2014

    I find it impossible to believe that the press continues to give air and/or space to wackos like West. I keep asking myself, “Why….?”

    1. Independent1 June 20, 2014

      Exactly!! Why does the media even publish or broadcast interviews with people who are so totally irrelevant?? The unfortunate part is that they promote idiocy from these people while often overlooking or relegating to the back pages, or slow time spots, articles that would be far more enlightening and worthwhile knowing about.

      1. FredAppell June 21, 2014

        You know exactly why, the media knows that sensationalism and drama sells better than stoicism. Have you ever watched Faux news, even for just 2 minutes? I have and I can tell you that some of the characters on their shows are better actors than most of Hollywood. People want their news to be entertaining which is pretty silly when you think about considering that Walter Cronkite used to be the bench mark for professionalism. It just goes to show how far we’ve sunk.

        1. Independent1 June 21, 2014

          You’re right! I do know why! Reporters and other media types will always focus on what’s negative and sensational (even if a lie) because unfortunately that’s what readers and listeners gravitate to. Sadly, good news doesn’t seem to incite people like bad news.

          All of which is why the Dems are having trouble getting the message out about what they and Obama have accomplished. They have to figure out a way to create their messages about what they’ve accomplished or what they’re trying to prevent from happening, in as negative a way as possible in order to catch readers/listeners attention. For example: They have to begin pounding on the bad things that will happen to the country and the majority of Americans if the GOP gets its way.

          There are plenty of examples of the bad things that GOP governance is creating in Red States, like shorter life spans, higher auto accident rates, higher homicide rates, more violence on average, much higher poverty rates, much higher infant mortality rates, and more.

          Somehow the Dems have to get the message across to far more Americans that living in a red state can actually be injurious to your health and well being and mean you’re going to live a shorter life (only one red state has a projected longevity of 80 (Utah) while there are 9 blue states with longevity to 80 and 81. No blue state has a longevity as short as ages 75-77 but there are 10 red states that do).

          Seems to me that the danger of dying 2-5 years younger in a red state than in a blue state, should wake some people up to the disaster that is GOP governance.

    2. Russell Byrd June 24, 2014

      Our lame media would like to believe and tries to promote the idea that they are being an impartial presenter of both sides. That is, when they have not been outright bought. They pretend that they are not vetting anything that is said, but merely presenting information of value for our perusal. With that in mind, Hannibal Lector could argue for “healthy” changes to the school menu, and our media would never bat an eye. Add that the average “journalist” these days cannot even dot an “i.”

  11. Pamby50 June 20, 2014

    The National Memo had so many to choose from this week. Not only these 5 but you could add the Cheney family.

  12. newhope4all June 20, 2014

    How long is it going to take to get beyond the crazy talk of these ignorant self promoting fools that are polluting the airwaves? Haven’t we all had enough of hatred and lies? Can we get down to the business of creating a better life for all and at least “do no harm”. I want to hear about solutions for a change. Get these people out of our faces because they are useless and distracting. Who cares what they think if they can’t make our individual lives better. I didn’t know who they were before the media rammed them down our throats and I don’t care now either. They are strangers who don’t know me or give a damn about me so why should they have any business shooting off their mouths. I am just plain sick of all this cheap, disgusting talk from idiots. There ought to be a law against stupid that makes them shut up in public.

    1. Russell Byrd June 20, 2014

      We need to restore sanity in our media by having a “national ombudsman.” I realize all the right-wacko negativity about “partisanship,” but properly selected ombudsmen make very fair non-partisan judgements quite successfully everyday. What we need for a start is establish a standard of truth, what we used to call the “fairness doctrine” that sets a rough minimum for truth in our media. Of course, the Repubs destroyed that doctrine under Saint Ronnie, because telling the truth was not beneficial to their platform.

      I know this would not be perfect, but the obvious, egregious “lies, and the liars that tell them” (thanks Al Franken), would be immediately exposed. That is, the worst of the worst that are causing the most harm. I am not looking for perfection, but for too long we have allowed vicious slander and deceit to stand the same as gospel truth. Of course, Rush, Beck, Fox, and company would resist to the point of encouraging violence. They would of course agree at first, pointing out the benefits of destroying “liberal lies,” but in the end, when its effects are about to be fully felt, their hate mongering would be unprecedented. It is instructive that the destruction of “fairness” roughly coincided with the rise of these criminals, a seditious right-wing, heavily armed militias, hate talk media, and a multitude of other talking heads paid to tell lies and pander to our basest hatreds and fears.

      As an aside, since the “canonization” of Ronnie Raygun, the Repub party, as bad as it sometimes was before that time, became a party with a platform that they dared not explain truthfully to the American people. This is the exact same platform they had at the beginning of the twentieth century. Ergo, any “fairness doctrine” had to “die.” We see the same phenomena with the current Citizen United, etc. rulings. When you only represent 0.3% of the population in the full sense of the word, then you cannot dare to employ tactics other than negativity, propaganda, and deceit in order to remain in power. The proof of their success in these matters is seen in this very blog on an almost daily basis. That is, there be trolls here . . . if not now, then soon. Boo sux to the right[rat]-wing.

      There are quite a number of articles on the subject of the “fairness doctrine,” but a simple, straightforward one is:


      1. Independent1 June 21, 2014

        Russell, I couldn’t agree more. Not only should there be someone reviewing and calling out the tripe that right-wing wackos get away with spewing in all forms of the media, but I also think a moratorium should be enacted into law on the publishing of polls.

        Biased polls have become far to prevalent. The publishing of polls that are designed primarily to sway public opinion by suggesting that most Americans think one way or another are being published non stop. The way questions are asked in many polls, are done in a way that creates the biased response whomever is publishing the poll wants to achieve. Therefore, to me, most polls published today are meaningless aside from them swaying people’s opinions – which I don’t think should be allowed within 3-6 months of an election.

        As an example was a recent NBC/WSJ poll which an NM contributor used to create an article suggesting that Obama’s favorability ratings among Americans had recently dropped. Which was true only in the NBC/WSJ poll and not shown in a couple other less partisan polls like the PEW and Rassmusen polls.

        1. Russell Byrd June 23, 2014

          I wish we could put some standards on polls. Public polling, sadly, is mostly about having something to sway the public with. No one is going to run polls that give them a different answer than they paid to get.

          Wasn’t it ABC, or one of its affiliates, that concluded that conservatives were more generous that liberals base on canvassing in front of two Wally World’s at Christmas time. Most liberals that have a dime, probably don’t even go to the Walton’s shrine. I certainly don’t. Of course, I am an anomaly. I do not shop at Wal-Mart AND I don’t have a dime. 🙂

  13. exdemo55 June 20, 2014

    The Obama administration has been awash with scandals – some that have been said to surpass Watergate – and yet America’s mainstream press has apparently forgotten its role as watchdog, claims Fox Business News’ Lou Dobbs, and his award-winning journalist guest has a theory as to why.

    Emmy-winning investigative journalist Sharyl Attkisson appeared on the June 19 “Lou Dobbs Tonight” program and explained the media isn’t digging into allegations the White House used the power of the IRS to target tea-party groups because “propaganda interests” have intimidated reporters so severely, they’re afraid if they cover the administration’s scandals, they’ll be seen as a “right-wing nut.”

    “Whether it’s Fast and Furious, whether it is spying on a journalist, whether it’s IRS targeting, Benghazi, the list goes on and on and on,” Dobbs posited to Attkisson. “Yet the national liberal media, as I often style it, simply will not rise up to the level of a watchdog for the state. Instead they are behaving much more like lap dogs. It is, to me, mind boggling.”

    Attkisson suggested some reporters may simply not be that interested in these scandal stories, but she also suggested there may be more nefarious forces at work.

    “I think to some degree they have been played by propaganda interests who suggest that if these stories are covered, they are simply phony scandals and Republican generated. Which they’re not, in my opinion,” she said. “From a neutral viewpoint there are many important questions to be asked and implications here. But the propaganda campaign says that if you’re interested in the story you’re a conservative and a right-wing nut.

    “Media should not be swayed by that,” she concluded, “but I think to some degree they are.”

    Attkisson made similar comments on radio host Laura Ingraham’s program the same day – not about the IRS scandal, but about the recent flood of underage illegal immigrants streaming across the U.S. border.

    Attkisson explained how “only one side” of certain stories are being reported, the side sympathetic to illegal immigrants.

    “It’s perceived as you’re negative, or you’re mean, or you’re racist perhaps if you go after these other stories,” she said, “and I simply don’t think that’s the case, but I feel like there is that kind of pressure sometimes.”

    Attkisson has twice won Emmys for her investigative journalism and has been nominated for several more, most recently for her reporting on the Fast & Furious scandal.

    Get the book by the man who helped Attkisson break the Fast & Furious story wide open, former ATF agent John Dodson’s “The Unarmed Truth: My Fight to Blow the Whistle and Expose Fast and Furious.”

    In March 2014, however, Attkisson resigned from CBS News, in part because of her frustration with the network’s liberal bias and lack of dedication to investigative reporting.

    A quick survey of major news sources’ online homepages at the time of this report revealed while many were headlining the IRS scandal, CNN.com, for example, had no mention of the story on its homepage and CBSNews.com framed its headlines with the phrases “monumental waste” and “sensationalizing scandal.”

    Yet Daniel Henninger of the Wall Street Journal, a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize in his own right, wrote the scandal was even more significant than the one that toppled the Nixon presidency.

    “The IRS tea-party audit story isn’t Watergate; it’s worse than Watergate,” Henninger wrote. “The Watergate break-in was the professionals of the party in power going after the party professionals of the party out of power. The IRS scandal is the party in power going after the most average Americans imaginable.”

  14. exdemo55 June 20, 2014

    A California grand jury has indicted Kareem Ahmed, a major donor to President Obama’s 2012 re-election campaign, and 15 of Ahmed’s associates in an alleged multimillion-dollar insurance kickback scheme.

    Ahmed, the president and CEO of a company called Landmark Medical Management, is accused of masterminding the scheme and faces charges including conspiracy, insurance fraud, and, most dramatically, involuntary manslaughter, according to one of two sealed indictments issued by an Orange County grand jury both dated June 17 and obtained this week by TPM.

    The first of the two indictments accused Ahmed of developing topical cream formulas “based on the profitability of the ingredients,” and then giving doctors who treated workers’ compensation patients illegal financial incentives to prescribe the creams. The scheme, which ran from 2009-2013, also involved filing false claims with multiple insurance companies, the nine-count indictment alleges.

    The indictment provides few details on the involuntary manslaughter charge, alleging only that Ahmed, a pharmacist named Michael Rudolph, and a doctor named Andrew Jarminiski (who are both charged along with Ahmed in the first indictment) “did unlawfully and without malice kill Andrew G. (a minor), a human being, in the commission of a lawful act which might produce death, in an unlawful manner and without due caution and circumspection.”

    TPM’s attempts to contact Rudolph and lawyers for Ahmed and Jarminiski were unsuccessful on Thursday. In a statement emailed to TPM on Friday, Landmark Medical Management human resources manager, Ladonna Hieber, said that Ahmed and his staff “are innocent of all charges that have been alleged. The charges are meritless and we expect full exoneration of any wrongdoing.” Southern California Public Radio, which first reported on the indictment, reported late Thursday that the The Orange County prosecutor’s office declined to comment to SCPR because the indictments remain under seal.

    In an extensive profile in 2012, TPM first reported about Ahmed’s business practices, which officials and workers compensation experts in California have had suspicions about for years. In his initial interview with TPM, in his Ontario, California office in August of that year, Ahmed agreed to meet only if his lawyer were present and the interview was off the record. In a subsequent on-the-record phone interview, Ahmed was wary of providing details about how his business worked.

    “My problem is, I don’t want competition,” Ahmed said at the time. “I like to have a private life. I don’t want people to copy my business model, which I have wasted millions on, with legal opinion letters, from whatever, perfecting it over years. I don’t want people to take it for free, and start giving me competition.”

    Despite having little history of political giving, Ahmed gave $1 million to the pro-Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action in 2012, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars to support Democrats. In his interview with TPM in 2012, Ahmed called House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) his best friend, and said he regularly spent time with governors and U.S. senators. Data maintained by The Center for Responsive Politics show that Ahmed contributed tens of thousands of additional dollars to Democrats in 2013.

    TPM’s initial reporting about Ahmed met resistance from Bill Burton, the former White House deputy press secretary and co-founder of Priorities USA Action.

    “Not every person who is interested in investing in the direction of the country is looking to make themselves famous by doing it,” Burton told TPM in 2012.

    According to The Center for Responsive Politics, Ahmed made his most recent federal campaign contribution on September 30, 2013: $5,200 to Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA). In early October, the Orange County District Attorney’s Office raided the offices of Landmark Medical Management.

    In the second sealed indictment obtained by TPM, the Orange County grand jury brought 35 charges against 12 of Ahmed’s associates, including a number of physicians and chiropractors and former Landmark Medical Management Vice President Bruce Curnick. The defendants are accused of conspiring with Ahmed, who is not charged in the second indictment, and the counts include insurance fraud, kickbacks for patient referrals, and false claims. The doctors accepted millions of dollars from Ahmed between 2010 and 2013, the second indictment alleges.

  15. exdemo55 June 20, 2014

    Democrats have a strategy for holding the U.S. Senate this year: Limit their losses to five seats or fewer, and then pick off Sen. Mitch McConnell, perhaps even swipe the GOP’s open seat in Georgia. It won’t be easy.

    Three Republican nominees—Montana Rep. Steve Daines, former South Dakota Gov. Mike Rounds and West Virginia Rep. Shelley Moore Capito —lead by double-digits in the Real Clear Politics (RCP) average of recent polls. If the mid-July Federal Election Commission fundraising reports show these Republicans with healthy cash advantages, Democratic interest and money could go elsewhere.

    That doesn’t mean these Republicans will be home free. If Democrats sense an opportunity, they will jump in with last-minute attack ads. But with Montana, South Dakota and West Virginia probably not in the cards—half the seats Republicans need to win a majority—Democrats hope to save endangered incumbents elsewhere.

    That could be tough. RCP shows Republican challengers, despite being less well-known, running ahead of Democratic senators in Louisiana and North Carolina, even in Alaska, and trailing in Arkansas by 1%.

    So Democrats have ripped a page from the Obama campaign’s 2012 playbook. The party spent lavishly to turn swing voters against Mitt Romney, and Democrats have now launched a similar summer offensive to hold these four Senate seats. The lines of attack differ, but the common thread is deception.

    In North Carolina, Sen. Kay Hagan and outside groups have $1.9 million in ads already set to run between June and Sept. 1, while Emily’s List and Planned Parenthood have pledged $6 million to defeat Republican State House Speaker Thom Tillis.

    Emily’s List is running spots saying Mr. Tillis “cut almost $500 million from education.” Before Mr. Tillis became speaker in 2011, the North Carolina K-12 education budget was $7.15 billion. It’s $7.81 billion this fiscal year and is expected to climb to $8 billion next year.

    In Louisiana, Sen. Mary Landrieu and liberal interests have $1.4 million in summer ads accusing GOP Rep. Bill Cassidy of supporting “government-run health care.” FactCheck.Org calls this “pure invention” and “audaciously false.” Democrats don’t care. By wrapping ObamaCare around Mr. Cassidy, they hope to help nominate a weaker GOP candidate against Mrs. Landrieu.

    Alaska Sen. Mark Begich and a super-PAC funded by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid have reserved $1.4 million in summer ad time so far. After failing to convince voters that Alaska’s former attorney general and natural resources commissioner was not an Alaskan, they are now accusing Republican Dan Sullivan of limiting where Alaskans “can hunt and fish.” That is false.

    Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor and liberal groups have bought $1.7 million of ads this summer to trash GOP Rep. Tom Cotton for supporting an increase in the Social Security retirement age. Mr. Pryor has been on record supporting this change since 2011.

    Democrats want to make these Republicans toxic to voters inclined to replace lawmakers who rubber stamp the Obama agenda. If Republicans keep that from happening by Labor Day, they could take three or four of these red states.

    GOP candidates must raise and deploy enough resources to combat this summer offensive, while counting on outside groups like American Crossroads (which I helped found) to keep pressure on these Democrats and their records.

    Democratic troubles aren’t limited to red states. Four other Democratic seats are already competitive. RCP says Republican state Sen. Joni Ernst is leading in Iowa and Republican Rep. Cory Gardner is down by less than 2% in Colorado. Former Secretary of State Terri Lynn Land in Michigan and former U.S. Sen. Scott Brown in New Hampshire are within 5%. The Democrats in these races are stuck around 44%, dangerous territory for incumbents. In Oregon, Minnesota and Virginia, Republican challengers trail by double digits but the incumbent Democrats can’t break 50%, showing voters aren’t sure they deserve re-election.

    Democratic hopes of snatching Republicans seats aren’t panning out so far. Senate Minority Leader McConnell continues running a disciplined campaign in Kentucky while his Democratic challenger, Alison Lundergan Grimes, stumbles over issues ranging from her party’s war on coal to ObamaCare. In Georgia, Democratic candidate Michelle Nunn has gotten off to a shaky start while the GOP runoff is between two candidates both capable of winning the general election, Rep. Jack Kingston and businessman David Perdue.

    The election is in November but key Senate races could be determined this summer. For Republicans to regain control of the Senate, surviving this early onslaught is critical.

    1. Sand_Cat June 20, 2014

      Are you publishing a book?
      Does any of this have the slightest bearing on the article?

      1. Independent1 June 21, 2014

        Sandy, it’s been my feeling that this poster is either a member of or is being paid by the RNC to post as many comments as possible that purport to show negatives about what Obama and the Dems have worked to accomplish. Most of the time what he or she posts are snippets of articles which if you really look into them are irrelevant items with no real substantive implications. In other words, just more right wing distortion of the facts like Romney spewed non-stop during the 3 presidential debates back in 2012.

        So I’ve come to the realization that totally ignoring this creep is the best way to go. I make no effort to read the tripe it posts!!

  16. Russell Byrd June 20, 2014

    There used to be a FCC “rule” that was created in 1947[?} called the “fairness doctrine.” Though I am uncertain, I would not doubt that a primary reason for its creation was the fear of Communist propaganda and subversion using the First Amendment right of a free press as a cover. Saint Ronnie’s administration got it removed due to its not being “in the best interests of the public.” Or as I might say, the best interests of the right-wing oligarchs.

    We need to restore sanity in our media by having a “national ombudsman.” I realize the response of the right-wing hate media machine will be negativity about “partisanship.” Yet properly selected ombudsmen render very fair non-partisan judgements successfully everyday. What we need for a start is to establish a standard of acceptable truth, i.e. the “fairness doctrine” that sets a rough minimum for truth in our media. Of course, the Repubs destroyed that doctrine under Saint Ronnie, because telling the truth was not beneficial to their platform.

    I know this would not be perfect, but the obvious, egregious “lies, and the liars that tell them” (thanks Al Franken), would be immediately exposed. That is, the worst of the worst that are causing the most harm. I am not looking for perfection, but for too long we have allowed vicious slander and deceit to stand the same as gospel truth. Of course, Rush, Beck, Fox, and company would resist to the point of encouraging violence. They would of course agree at first, pointing out the benefits of destroying “liberal lies,” but in the end, when its effects are about to be fully felt, their hate mongering would be unprecedented. It is instructive that the destruction of “fairness” roughly coincided with the rise of these criminals, a seditious right-wing, heavily armed militias, hate talk media, and a multitude of other talking heads paid to tell lies and pander to our basest hatreds and fears.

    As an aside, since the “canonization” of Ronnie Raygun, the Repub party, as bad as it sometimes was before that time, became a party with a platform that they dared not explain truthfully to the American people. This is the exact same platform they had at the beginning of the twentieth century. Ergo, any “fairness doctrine” had to “die.” We see the same phenomena with the current Citizen United, etc. rulings. When you only represent 0.3% of the population in the full sense of the word, then you cannot dare to employ tactics other than negativity, propaganda, and deceit in order to remain in power. The proof of their success in these matters is seen in this very blog on an almost daily basis. That is, there be trolls here . . . if not now, then soon. Boo sux to the right[rat]-wing.

    There are quite a number of articles on the subject of the “fairness doctrine,” but a simple, straightforward one is:


  17. Bert June 21, 2014

    Obama is the ultimate criminal con artist. Despite his non stop treason the loonies on the left worship him just like they worshiped Stalin and Castro. Obama is like a political hypnotist who makes his followers believe in his cult of personality. Too many Americans have been dumb’ed down to where our democracy can no longer function normally and we have entered the period of “1984” and ‘big brother is watching’.
    Historians claim that democracies tend to self destruct after about 250 years and America is nearly that old.

    1. Independent1 June 21, 2014

      Would you care to enlighten us with all the criminal activities Obama has engaged in!! Clueless generalities such as you just posted only proves that you’re just one more clueless fan of Faux News, or Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck or whomever.

      You have absolutely no facts to back up that assertion.

    2. Duckbudder June 22, 2014

      “Historians claim that democracies tend to self destruct after about 250 years and America is nearly that old.”

      Just howmany democracies were studied? Must have been alot of them before 1776?

      1. BillP June 22, 2014

        Duck this is typical right wing troll blather. “Historians claim that democracies tend to self destruct after about 250 years and America is nearly that old.”. Notice that no historian is identified by this troll nor are any sources listed. Just an unfounded statement made without any provable facts.

  18. cryofly June 22, 2014

    Is it me hearing things or is M.Kelly the one republican out in the world who seems to be coming out of the hate daze? Over the last few days she seems to be more concerned that the US populace would totally abandon GoP in the next elections. She might actually be able to help GoP by not giving these mad guys the air time. But then already they “may have jumped off the deep end.”

  19. exdemo55 June 22, 2014

    In his new book, “Blood Feud,” journalist Edward Klein gets inside the dysfunctional, jealous relationship between Bill and Hillary Clinton and Barack and Michelle Obama — and how it could explode in 2016.

    Outwardly, they put on a show of unity — but privately, the Obamas and Clintons, the two power couples of the Democrat Party, loathe each other.

    “I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived,” Bill Clinton said to friends on one occasion, adding he would never forgive Obama for suggesting he was a racist during the 2008 campaign.

    The feeling is mutual. Obama made ­excuses not to talk to Bill, while the first lady privately sniped about Hillary.

    On most evenings, Michelle Obama and her trusted adviser, Valerie Jarrett, met in a quiet corner of the White House residence. They’d usually open a bottle of Chardonnay, catch up on news about Sasha and Malia, and gossip about people who gave them heartburn.

    Their favorite bête noire was Hillary Clinton, whom they nicknamed “Hildebeest,” after the menacing and shaggy-maned gnu that roams the Serengeti.

    The animosity came to a head in the run-up to the 2012 election, when Obama’s inner circle insisted he needed the former president’s support to win. Obama finally telephoned Bill Clinton in September 2011 and invited him out for a round of golf.

    “I’m not going to enjoy this,” Bill told Hillary when they gathered with a group of friends and political associates at Whitehaven, their neo-Georgian home on Embassy Row in Washington, DC.

    “I’ve had two successors since I left the White House — Bush and Obama — and I’ve heard more from Bush, asking for my advice, than I’ve heard from Obama. I have no relationship with the president — none whatsoever,” Clinton said.

    “I really can’t stand the way Obama ­always seems to be hectoring when he talks to me,” Clinton added, according to someone who was present at the gathering and spoke on the condition of anonymity. “Sometimes we just stare at each other. It’s pretty damn awkward. Now we both have favors to ask each other, and it’s going to be very unpleasant. But I’ve got to get this guy to owe me and to be on our side.”

    During the golf game, Clinton didn’t waste any time reminding Obama that as president he had presided over eight years of prosperity, while Obama had been unable to dig the country out of the longest financial ­doldrums since the Great Depression.

    “Bill got into it right away,” said a Clinton family friend. “He told Obama, ‘Hillary and I are gearing up for a run in 2016.’ He said Hillary would be ‘the most qualified, most experienced candidate, perhaps in history.’ His reference to Hillary’s experience made Obama wince, since it was clearly a shot at his lack of experience when he ran for president.

    “And so Bill continued to talk about Hillary’s qualifications . . . and the coming campaign in 2016. But Barack didn’t bite. He changed the subject several times. Then suddenly, Barack said something that took Bill by complete surprise. He said, ‘You know, Michelle would make a great presidential candidate, too.’

    “Bill was speechless. Was Barack comparing Michelle’s qualifications to Hillary’s? Bill said that if he hadn’t been on a mission to strike a deal with Barack, he might have stormed off the golf course then and there.”

    Blackberry snub

    Bill Clinton would go on to campaign for Obama in 2012, but he felt betrayed when the president seemed to waver when it came to a 2016 endorsement of Hillary. Obama attempted to smooth things over with a joint “60 Minutes” interview with Hillary, and later a private dinner for the two couples at the White House.

    ‘I hate that man Obama more than any man I’ve ever met, more than any man who ever lived.’ – Bill Clinton in ‘Blood Feud’

    And so, on March 1, 2013 — the very day that the $85 billion in budget cuts known as the “sequester” went into effect — the Clintons slipped unnoticed into the White House and sat down for dinner with the Obamas in the Residence.

    Typically, once Obama decided to do something (for example, the surge in Afghanistan), he immediately had second thoughts, and his behavior during dinner degenerated from moody to grumpy to bad-tempered.

    After the obligatory greetings and small talk about family, Obama asked Bill what he thought about the sequester: Would it turn out to be a political plus for him? Bill went into a long — and boring — lecture about the issue.

    To change the subject, Hillary asked Michelle if it was true, as she had heard, that the first lady was thinking about running for the Senate from Illinois.

    Michelle said that she was warming to the idea, though she had yet to make up her mind.

    Bill shot Hillary a look of incredulity.

    Bill then moved the conversation to Obama’s vaunted 2012 campaign ­organization. He told Obama that it would be a good idea to fold the organization, along with all its digital and social-media bells and whistles, into the Democratic National Committee.

    Obama’s only response was a disparaging smile.

    President Barack Obama acts cordial with former President Clinton but it’s all for show, according to the new book “Blood Feud,” by journalist Edward Klein.Photo: White House

    “You have to use your organization to aid the candidate in 2016,” Bill pressed Obama.

    “Really?” Obama replied in a tone of undisguised sarcasm.

    The two men went back and forth over the subject of where the money for Obama’s campaign organization had come from and how to allocate funds for the 2016 presidential election. Bill raised his voice. So did Obama.

    As Bill Clinton went on about his managerial experience, Obama began playing with his Blackberry under the table, making it plain that he wasn’t paying attention to anything Clinton had to say. He was intentionally snubbing Clinton. Others around the table noticed Obama thumbing his Blackberry, and the atmosphere turned even colder than before.

    Hillary changed the subject again.

    “Are you glad you won’t have to campaign again?” she asked Obama. “You don’t seem to ­enjoy it.”

    “For a guy who doesn’t like it,” Obama replied tartly, “I’ve done pretty well.”

    “Well,” Bill said, adding his two cents, “I was glad to pitch in and help get you re-elected.”

    There was another long pause. Finally, Obama turned to Bill and said, sotto voce, “Thanks.”

    After the dinner, and once the Clintons had been ushered out of the family quarters, Obama shook his head and said, “That’s why I never invite that guy over.”

    Obama’s mini-me

    Lately, Bill Clinton has become convinced that Obama won’t endorse Hillary in 2016. During a gathering at Whitehaven, guests overheard Bill talking to his daughter Chelsea about whether the president would back Joe Biden.

    “Recently, I’ve been hearing a different scenario from state committeemen,” Clinton said. “They say he’s looking for a candidate who’s just like him. Someone relatively unknown. Someone with a fresh face.

    “He’s convinced himself he’s been a brilliant president, and wants to clone himself — to find his Mini-Me.

    “He’s hunting for someone to succeed him, and he believes the American people don’t want to vote for someone who’s been around for a long time. He thinks that your mother and I are what he calls ‘so 20th century.’ He’s looking for ­another Barack Obama.”

  20. exdemo55 June 23, 2014

    What philosopher Harvey Mansfield calls “taming the prince” — making executive power compatible with democracy’s abhorrence of arbitrary power — has been a perennial problem of modern politics.

    It is now more urgent in America than at any time since the Founders, having rebelled against George III’s unfettered exercise of “royal prerogative,” stipulated that presidents “shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

    Serious as are the policy disagreements roiling Washington, none is as important as the structural distortion threatening constitutional equilibrium. Institutional derangement driven by unchecked presidential aggrandizement did not begin with Barack Obama, but his offenses against the separation of powers have been egregious in quantity, and qualitatively different.

    Regarding immigration, health care, welfare, education, drug policy and more, Obama has suspended, waived and rewritten laws, including the Affordable Care Act.

    That law required the employer mandate to begin this year. But Obama wrote a new law, giving to certain-sized companies a delay until 2016, and stipulating that other employers must certify they will not drop employees to avoid the mandate. Doing so would trigger criminal perjury charges; so, he created a new crime, that of adopting a business practice he opposes.

    Presidents must exercise some discretion in interpreting laws, must have some latitude in allocating finite resources to the enforcement of laws and must have some freedom to act in the absence of law.

    Obama, however, has perpetrated more than 40 suspensions of laws. Were presidents the sole judges of the limits of their latitude, they would effectively have plenary power to vitiate the separation of powers, the Founders’ bulwark against despotism.

    Congress cannot reverse egregious executive aggressions such as Obama’s without robust judicial assistance. It is, however, difficult to satisfy the criteria that the Constitution and case law require for Congress to establish “standing” to seek judicial redress for executive usurpations injurious to the legislative institution.

    Courts, understandably fearful of being inundated by lawsuits from small factions of disgruntled legislators, have been wary of granting legislative standing. However, David Rivkin, a Washington lawyer, and Elizabeth Price Foley of Florida International University have studied the case law and believe standing can be obtained conditional on four things:

    That a majority of one congressional chamber explicitly authorize a lawsuit. That the lawsuit concern the president’s “benevolent” suspension of an unambiguous provision of law that, by pleasing a private faction, precludes the appearance of a private plaintiff. That Congress cannot administer political self-help by remedying the presidential action by simply repealing the law. And that the injury amounts to nullification of Congress’ power.

    Hence the significance of a House lawsuit, advocated by Rivkin and Foley, that would unify fractious Republicans while dramatizing Obama’s lawlessness. The House would bring a civil suit seeking a judicial declaration that Obama has violated the separation of powers by effectively nullifying a specific provision of a law, thereby diminishing Congress’ power. Authorization of this lawsuit by the House would give Congress “standing” to sue.

    Congress’ authorization, which would affirm an institutional injury rather than some legislators’ personal grievances, satisfies the first criterion. Obama’s actions have fulfilled the rest by nullifying laws and thereby rendering the Constitution’s enumeration of Congress’ power meaningless.

    The House has passed Rep. Trey Gowdy’s (R-SC) bill that would guarantee expedited consideration by federal courts of House resolutions initiating lawsuits to enforce presidents to “faithfully execute” laws. But as a bill, it is impotent unless and until Republicans control the Senate and a Republican holds the president’s signing pen.

    Some say the judicial branch should not intervene because if Americans are so supine that they tolerate representatives who tolerate such executive excesses, they deserve to forfeit constitutional government.

    This abstract doctrine may appeal to moralists lacking responsibilities. For the judiciary, it would be dereliction of the duty to protect the government’s constitutional structure. It would be perverse for courts to adhere to a doctrine of congressional standing so strict that it precludes judicial defense of the separation of powers.

    Advocates of extreme judicial quietism to punish the supine people leave the people’s representatives no recourse short of the extreme and disproportionate “self help” of impeachment.

    Surely courts should not encourage this. The cumbersome and divisive blunderbuss process of impeachment should be a rare recourse. Furthermore, it would punish a president for anti-constitutional behavior, but would not correct the injury done to the rule of law.

    Surely the Republican House majority would authorize a lawsuit. And doing so would establish Speaker John Boehner as the legislature’s vindicator.


Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.